Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (R-HI) speaks to the crowd during the 2019 South Carolina Democratic Party State Convention on June 22, 2019 in Columbia, South Carolina. (Photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

As the progressive activist and commentator Jim Hightower of Texas has famously said, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

"To not take a stand one way or another in a day of such grave consequence to this country is quite difficult. We're here to lead." —Rep. Alexandria Ocasio (D-NY)And, one might add to that, Democratic Congresswomen Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

On Wednesday night, Gabbard became the first member of Congress in U.S. history to vote "present" on the question of impeaching a sitting president.

"I am standing in the center and have decided to vote present," Gabbard said in a statement.

"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing," Gabbard explained. "I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."

A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are ripping our country apart. Today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people. #StandWithTulsipic.twitter.com/wAvu8PXNoB

For many Democrats, however, it was an untenable and unwise position for Gabbard—also running to become the party's presidential nominee—to take.

"I really think it was not a smart choice for her politically," said fellow House Democrat, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, during an interview on Democracy Now. "I thought that was very disappointing and, frankly, a cop out."

.@RepJayapal criticizes Hawaii Congressmember and presidential candidate @TulsiGabbard for voting "present" on impeachment. "I really think it was not a smart choice for her politically," Jayapal says. "I thought that was very disappointing and, frankly, a cop out." pic.twitter.com/sSxRHaoWSf

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Never Miss a Beat.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as The Daily Beastreports, told reporters after the vote that "to not take a stand one way or another in a day of such grave consequence to this country is quite difficult. We're here to lead."

Instead of impeaching Trump, Gabbard has called for the president to be censured, an official rebuke by the House but devoid of tangible consequences. Her decision to vote "present" on the impeachment articles before the U.S. House, however, was historic.

When President Bill Clinton was formally impeached by the U.S. House in 1998, there were four articles brought against him. While two of the articles were approved and two failed, largely along party lines, no member of Congress voted simply "present" on any of the counts. When President Andrew Johnson faced impeachment in 1867, the final House vote was 128 in favor to 47 who opposed. While the U.S. House was much smaller at the time, there were no votes for "present" recorded as the House sent the articles of impeachment to U.S. Senate for trial.

Tulsi Gabbard is only the 20th member of the House in history not to vote on articles of impeachment against a sitting president, and the first ever to vote “present.” https://t.co/l5Wa7xq9dL

Journalist Matt Fuller, political correspondent for HuffPost, commented that Gabbard's vote was indicative of a politician who has proven "a knack for pissing BOTH SIDES off."

Many Democratic voters and pundits were furious with Gabbard's position as the congresswoman's name, and the derisive hashtag #GabbardIsACoward, were both trending on social media Thursday morning.

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Our pandemic coverage is free to all. As is all of our reporting.

No paywalls. No advertising. No corporate sponsors. Since the coronavirus pandemic broke out, traffic to the Common Dreams website has gone through the roof— at times overwhelming and crashing our servers. Common Dreams is a news outlet for everyone and that’s why we have never made our readers pay for the news and never will. But if you can, please support our essential reporting today. Without Your Support We Won't Exist.

Further

Prepping for Saturday's protests in D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser went for the grand gesture - and a symbolic middle finger to the racist cowering in the White House - and had "Black Lives Matter" painted in yuge yellow letters on the city's main drag. Bowser's action, aimed at recognizing the thousands in the streets "craving to be heard and to be seen," was criticized by some activists as "performative distraction," but many celebrated it as a vital tribute: "We are saying it loud. We are here."

Common Dreams brings you the news that matters.

Sign up for Newsletter

Connect With Us

Support our common dreams.

Can We Count on Your Help Today?

Common Dreams is a small nonprofit with a big mission. Every day of the week, we publish the most important breaking news & views for the progressive community. To remain an independent news source, we do not advertise, sell subscriptions or accept corporate contributions. Instead, we rely on readers like you, to provide the "people power" that fuels our work. Please help keep Common Dreams alive by making a contribution. Thank you. - Craig Brown, Co-founder

Support Our Work -- Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Every donation—large or small—helps us bring you the news that matters.

Support Our Work -- Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Every donation—large or small—helps us bring you the news that matters.